Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Facebook Android Privacy

Facebook's Android App Can Now Retrieve Data About What Apps You Use 176

Posted by samzenpus
from the show-me-the-app dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Facebook on Friday released its Android launcher called Home. The company also updated its Facebook app, adding in new permissions to allow it to collect data about the apps you are running. Facebook has set up Home to interface with the main Facebook app on Android to do all the work. In fact, the main Facebook app features all the required permissions letting the Home app meekly state: 'THIS APPLICATION REQUIRES NO SPECIAL PERMISSIONS TO RUN.' As such, it’s the Facebook app that’s doing all the information collecting. It’s unclear, however, if it will do so even if Facebook Home is not installed. Facebook may simply be declaring all the permissions the Home launcher requires, meaning the app only starts collecting data if Home asks it to."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook's Android App Can Now Retrieve Data About What Apps You Use

Comments Filter:
  • by Richy_T (111409) on Sunday April 14, 2013 @04:02PM (#43447169) Homepage

    It was a mistake to allow apps to declare which access rights they want and then present users with a take-it-or-leave-it choice. While this part in itself is not a bad thing, it should be possible for users to fine-tune the settings once an app is installed and the apps then cope with that. I know there are apps out there that let you do this or similar but it should have been built in from the start. This is the activeX of the 2010s

    • by c (8461)

      I know there are apps out there that let you do this or similar but it should have been built in from the start.

      I have this funny feeling that's going to be one of Google's responses to Facebook Home. Maybe some combination of "required" permissions that the app always requires (i.e. ad-supported stuff needs to download ads) with "negotiable" permissions that the user can toggle on and off. And, obviously, some scheme in the Play Store to flag apps which get too greedy, or which require classes of permissio

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 14, 2013 @04:33PM (#43447301)

        As an app developer I would also like "negotiable" permissions.

        I think a long list of permissions can be off-putting to users, and many permissions are needed only when the user actually tries to e.g. send an SMS from the app or take a picture. It would be better at that point to ask the user if they trust the app, much like the Android VpnService has to when it starts.

        The other error is that some permissions are far too broad. For example, lots of apps require "Read phone state and identity" which gives the ability to learn not only the phone number, but also whether you are in a call and the number of the other party. Similarly there's a permission to read the phone book. A number of these apps simply want a unique ID for licencing purposes (the IMEI can be used where available, and the phone book gives the google account) but end up with a whole lot more and look a bit suspect.

        The ID thing is discussed at http://android-developers.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/identifying-app-installations.html, but the conclusion is poor, suggesting use of ANDROID_ID, but then still needing to jump through hoops for legacy devices. With about 40% of devices at API level 10 (http://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html) this still gives developers a headache.

        • Pause while in call (Score:5, Informative)

          by tepples (727027) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [selppet]> on Sunday April 14, 2013 @05:08PM (#43447461) Homepage Journal

          For example, lots of apps require "Read phone state and identity" which gives the ability to learn not only the phone number, but also whether you are in a call and the number of the other party.

          There's a very good reason for media players and games to require this. Knowing whether the user is in a call allows the program to pause itself until the call completes.

          • by Karlt1 (231423)

            There's a very good reason for media players and games to require this. Knowing whether the user is in a call allows the program to pause itself until the call completes.

            iOS handles it without requiring such intrusive permissions.....

            http://www.sagorin.org/ios-playing-audio-in-background-audio/ [sagorin.org]

            • I'll admit that Android has a "phone state" permission that's far too coarse-grained. But I see that as a minor flaw compared to the big flaw in iOS: Apple deliberately left out some parts of HTML5 as well as native APIs needed for applications to perform wireless network troubleshooting. Several categories of applications are completely excluded [pineight.com].
              • by Karlt1 (231423)

                I'll admit that Android has a "phone state" permission that's far too coarse-grained. But I see that as a minor flaw compared to the big flaw in iOS: Apple deliberately left out some parts of HTML5 as well as native APIs needed for applications to perform wireless network troubleshooting. Several categories of applications are completely excluded.

                Only on Slashdot would someone think that "not allowing wireless network troubleshooting" is equivalent to allowing a random app to know who I'm calling.

                FYI:Androi

                • It's not a contest -- the fact that iOS handles it well is a good thing. But it doesnt change the fact that what tepples said was also correct (though seems deprecated AFAICT). This was unfortunately the problem with that permission. It had very legitimate uses, and very nefarious ones too.

                  Nevertheless, you brought up the comparison to iOS. So kindly spare us the "only on slashdot" stuff when it was you who seemed to be spoiling for a brand fight.

                • WebGL in particular is not supported by Chrome or the old Android Browser (except for one specific phone).

                  Three things: First, one Android phone is greater than zero iPhones. Second, Android lets you install Firefox, which does support WebGL according to this chart [caniuse.com]. Third, WebGL is in Chrome for Android beta [thenextweb.com], which means it's coming soon to Chrome for Android.

                  • by Karlt1 (231423)

                    hree things: First, one Android phone is greater than zero iPhones.

                    So as a web developer would you depend on WebGL based on one obscure phone?

                    Would you target WebGL and then do the old 90's "Best viewed in FireFox for Android?"

                    • Would you target WebGL and then do the old 90's "Best viewed in FireFox for Android?"

                      "Best viewed in" is bad practice. Quoting the box at the lower left of the page linked at the end of your previous comment [mobilehtml5.org]: "Always use feature detection." If the WebGL feature is not detected, the application would display "This web application requires a web browser that supports WebGL." The words "a web browser that supports WebGL" would link to a list of web browsers that support WebGL either in a release version or in a beta version. The list would have sections for all platforms, with the platform ma

                    • by Karlt1 (231423)

                      For iOS it would say "Apple has chosen not to make WebGL available for your device. Please try this application using a desktop or laptop computer."

                      And that worked so well for Adobe with Flash on mobile.....

                    • Flash is different. Flash was effectively controlled by one vendor (Adobe). WebGL, on the other hand, was an open standard from day one. In fact, iOS 4.2 and later support WebGL, but only for iAds. This makes the omission of WebGL from Safari appear all the more deliberate.
          • Games should not need it. Any time the host activity is paused the games should pause any background processing. Media players, especially music players do play in the background, even with the screen off though. So for them, it is a must.

            The permission is too coarse though. They need to separate state and identity. Unfortunately they've dug a backwards compatibility hole pretty deeply though at this point.

          • I thought you could already do that without requiring READ_PHONE_STATE? When your app loses focus (for whatever reason, a call, user switches to another app, etc..) then onPause() gets called. You should be able to handle losing focus there... without needing any special permissions.

            Though I only write android apps as a hobby, so maybe I'm wrong.

            • I thought you could already do that without requiring READ_PHONE_STATE? When your app loses focus (for whatever reason, a call, user switches to another app, etc..) then onPause() gets called.

              Perhaps I was wrong about the games aspect, but the user of a music player application wants its service to keep playing in the background even while its activity is "stopped" (not visible at all). If you pause music playback when the user switches away, you're right back to the single-tasking in iOS pre-4. Perhaps audio focus [slashdot.org] is the right way to manage that.

        • by AuMatar (183847)

          And as a user I want to be able to deny certain permissions to certain apps. For example, I may be ok with an app having my location and reading my contacts- but not the ability to connect to the internet and send them somewhere. I should be able to allow some activities and block others.

          Although not using ANDROID_ID- thats only a problem in pre-2.2, which is less than 2% of the userbase these days. IMEI isn't reliable because a device may not have telephony (tablets) or may be CDMA (no IMEI). It also

        • j2me implementations had a bunch of permissions that on most phones were available ONLY as on demand given permissions, with some having no option(without trickery, carrier signing etc) to allow always even. or even allow for session.

          so they might be wary of that. but it could be done better. in the j2me world on many phones you had a filesystem and api's for handling that. but that wasn't much fun when getting a file listing or creating a file took 3 repeats of a two button press dialog!

        • by tlhIngan (30335)

          I think a long list of permissions can be off-putting to users, and many permissions are needed only when the user actually tries to e.g. send an SMS from the app or take a picture. It would be better at that point to ask the user if they trust the app, much like the Android VpnService has to when it starts.

          I don't really think it's the case. I think most users don't give a damn, actually. Given how the "Install" button used to be presented AFTER the permission list, and now it's presented BEFORE the permis

      • by Fuzzums (250400) on Sunday April 14, 2013 @04:51PM (#43447397) Homepage

        And, obviously, some scheme in the Play Store to flag apps which get too greedy, or which require classes of permissions which few should really need.

        Obviously definitely not that. It's a developer-first market. Developers are expensive and they do all the work for Google. For free. So Google is the last one that is going to limit them.

        • This is something I have been hoping to get time to write for awhile, more of a Wiki with statistics of how apps creep in their permission usage. Basically a community informational tool. Unfortunately I haven't had the time, nor much server coding experience. (If anyone is interested in contributing please feel free to contact me through my website).

          And while your cynical take on the "developer first market" is not far off the mark, I think we should remember that there is a social contract between dev

        • And, obviously, some scheme in the Play Store to flag apps which get too greedy, or which require classes of permissions which few should really need.

          Obviously definitely not that. It's a developer-first market. Developers are expensive and they do all the work for Google. For free. So Google is the last one that is going to limit them.

          Gives new meaning to the term: "Developing Nation", eh?

    • by AK Marc (707885) on Sunday April 14, 2013 @04:15PM (#43447219)
      I agree. I've always called for that. I've been told there are apps that do that, but it should be an OS level feature. I should be able to lie to my apps, much like I can by running a VM in a temporary partition with a single app inside it. Present a blank contact list and call history to any apps that ask. Block access to other apps (email and such). Let me choose.
    • by Greyfox (87712)
      I seem to recall reading that a newer cyanogenmod allows you to disable specific access rights on an app. Don't think it should have network access? Disable that access right. They did note that this could potentially "cause instability" with the application running. I'm pretty tempted to give it another go to get rid of the crapware my provider installed on the phone and pick up this feature.
      • by admdrew (782761) on Sunday April 14, 2013 @04:35PM (#43447313) Homepage
        Cyanogen definitely allowed this at one point (when looking at an installed app's settings, you could touch any of the permissions which would strike them out); it was hit or miss, with some apps crashing constantly when you disabled any of their permissions. I'm running 10.1 right now, and unfortunately this feature doesn't seem to exist anymore.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          A cool feature would be the ability to provide selected apps with spoofed data.

      • by wvmarle (1070040)

        Many permissions will of course cause an app to crash when not present. And you can't blame the developer for that. After all, to make things work you set the required permissions and then assume it's there. Missing permissions may indeed very well block some expected functionality.

        One of the few exceptions may be internet access - that can not be guaranteed ever. Phones can be out of network range, and even with the permission present you can not connect. However I'm actually not sure if my network availab

    • by Shavano (2541114) on Sunday April 14, 2013 @04:27PM (#43447263)
      you can use "Permissions Free" for example to modify an app's permissions. But some apps won't run if you take away any of their permissions. What's really needed is sandboxing.
    • by Darinbob (1142669)

      This would be a reasonable modification that could be made to Android, after-market.

    • I run the Droidwall firewall, with everything blacklisted by default. If an app won't run without net access, and I don't think it should get net access, it doesn't. This stops at least some exfiltration of data. Of course that wouldn't help with Facebook. But a lot of games claim to need net access for their 'leaderboard' or some such. It always makes me suspicious, especially if they totally refuse to run without being able to go out through the firewall.
    • While this part in itself is not a bad thing, it should be possible for users to fine-tune the settings once an app is installed

      Be realistic! Who is going to do this? Approximately no-one.

      What really is better is that as apps request protected resources, then you are asked if you want to allow such access - that way you the user have the context for the access, to understand exactly why you would want to allow that ability.

      There are a lot of iPhone apps for example, where I am happy to give location when

    • by tlhIngan (30335)

      It was a mistake to allow apps to declare which access rights they want and then present users with a take-it-or-leave-it choice. While this part in itself is not a bad thing, it should be possible for users to fine-tune the settings once an app is installed and the apps then cope with that. I know there are apps out there that let you do this or similar but it should have been built in from the start. This is the activeX of the 2010s

      Wait until Google isn't ad-supported for this feature. A lot of them are u

    • by netsharc (195805)

      I played with a BlackBerry in 2008, and they already had/have this. If an app doesn't have a particular permission, it would get a SecurityException. It's supposed to keep functioning (e.g. a chat app might not be able to read your contacts, so it would have to have its own contacts database that you'd manage manually).

      But of course Google apps just say "I have to have all permissions or I won't install myself" :(

  • by moderators_are_w*nke (571920) on Sunday April 14, 2013 @04:07PM (#43447193) Journal

    You buy a device to store your personal data on from a company that collects personal data for a living, and then run an app on it from another company that profits from collecting you data and then are confused when they collect your personal data?

    Reposting as me

    • by admdrew (782761)
      Who said anyone was confused? Data collection and app permissions don't need to be "all or nothing."
    • by Sir Holo (531007)
      Yep. This is why I recently deleted the FB App from my mobile.

      Recently went through my "Public Profile" or whatever they call it, and they had a map of all of the states, countries, and cities I had recently been to. And I DO NOT use their "check in" feature when arriving at locations. In fact, I hadn't used the App in months.

      Too creepy.
    • Hmmm... why are you still surprised that people are disappointed at breaches of what should be common decency? I assume from your post you've seen such reactions before.. so your surprise at people's good nature and consequent expectations shouldn't be commentworthy anymore... just sayin'...
    • by rvw (755107)

      You buy a device to store your personal data on from a company that collects personal data for a living, and then run an app on it from another company that profits from collecting you data and then are confused when they collect your personal data?

      Reposting as me

      I use facebook, on my android phone, but only in the Firefox browser, with the self-destructing-cookies addon installed. I hope this is enough to stop them from collecting data when I visit other sites.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 14, 2013 @04:16PM (#43447223)

    I was actually curious to try Home, but when I saw the new permissions requested by the Facebook base app, I just said 'enough is enough' and deleted it.

    I think I'm definitely in the minority, but stuff like this increases that bifurcation of their userbase. I keep a toe in just because I know people that use Facebook as a primary communications tool, but I already log in only in a separate browser from everything else I do just to quarantine it.

    • by allo (1728082)

      sad, mozilla stopped developing prism ... facebook is such a good usecase for it.

      • by dingen (958134)

        It is indeed very sad. Prism was a great tool to package web applications in a cross-platform and distributable way. I don't get why we used to have something like that and now we don't.

        • by allo (1728082)

          you can try chromium --app for that ... but i liked the mozilla version.

          • by dingen (958134)

            Its not the same. Chromium's solution is much more of a hassle than what Prism used to offer.

            • by allo (1728082)

              yeah, but better than nothing.

              maybe somebody wants to fork prism and make it run with current xulrunner? It cannot be a big deal, as long as you need no new features.

    • by jrumney (197329)

      I wasn't curious to try Home, but I saw the new permissions requested in order for Home to work, and recalled the last time I ditched the Facebook app, which was when they silently installed Camera and Messaging apps alongside it without my consent. They came to their senses on that, and bought themselves a second chance, but I'm afraid there won't be a third chance, because their app is no longer offering the value of contact integration that it was in those days, and by uninstalling it, I've realised how

      • I wasn't curious to try Home, but I saw the new permissions requested in order for Home to work, and recalled the last time I ditched the Facebook app, which was when they silently installed Camera and Messaging apps alongside it without my consent. They came to their senses on that, and bought themselves a second chance, but I'm afraid there won't be a third chance, because their app is no longer offering the value of contact integration that it was in those days, and by uninstalling it, I've realised how much of my battery drain was caused by that app.

        Facebook users generally don't mind the battery drain or privacy impact of the Facebook app unless it causes their Bonzi Buddies to deliver adverts more slowly than is usual.

  • Bye bye Facebook (Score:5, Informative)

    by rueger (210566) * on Sunday April 14, 2013 @04:24PM (#43447243) Homepage
    I looked over the new permissions being demanded by Facebook for the latest Android app update, and stopped dead at the point when they told me that the app could now "call phone numbers without your intervention." Say WHAT??

    I expect Google to have pretty intimate integration into an Android phone. I signed on knowing that. From everything I read Facebook is now looking to pretty much take control of the phone OS, not by developing their own, but by hijacking large swaths of control from Android or the user.

    Ultimately though one thing is making me stay away from this update, Facebook Home, and probably Facebook entirely on my phone: the Facebook app has been hands down the worst thing I've installed, and gets more useless with a very upgrade.
    • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

      by houghi (78078)

      I signed on knowing that.

      I did not sign anything. Luckily I live in Belgium where clicking 'I agree' is not a form of contract and phones are still sold unlocked by law without any operator linked to it.

      • Luckily I live in Belgium

        For people who want what you have, how's their immigration policy?

        where clicking 'I agree' is not a form of contract

        If accepting a contract offer under Belgian law cannot be done by activating a control in a graphical user interface, then how can anybody sign up for a service or buy a product over the Internet?

    • by AuMatar (183847)

      In their defense- having a button in their app to call a friend would require that permission, and is likely what they're using it for. Which isn't really without user intervention. But the permission is all or nothing- can place a call or can't.

    • by c (8461)

      Ultimately though one thing is making me stay away from this update, Facebook Home, and probably Facebook entirely on my phone

      Yup. I've removed it, or disabled it where pre-installed. The mobile version of the web site along with a third-party photo uploader pretty much covers everything I need Facebook to do.

  • Use Tinfoil Instead (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 14, 2013 @04:27PM (#43447261)

    USE TINFOIL FOR FACEBOOK!!!

    Seriously guys. It works pretty well, and it isn't as annoying as the Facebook app.

    https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.danvelazco.fbwrapper&hl=en

  • Facebook's android app drains battery, is full of bugs and has a wierd non-standard interface. I didn't think they could make it any worse, but here we go - well done Facebook, you really raised the bar on suck there.
  • When you assume... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Sunday April 14, 2013 @04:29PM (#43447279)

    If an app states it needs permission to do X and Y, it would be rather naive to not assume it will do X and Y.

    I'm a little surprised Android hasn't copied iOS's behavior, where it asks the user whether or not to grant permissions to a specific thing (e.g Contacts or Location) at the time the app tries to do so - it just makes sense, and it's not like both OSes haven't copied from each other before. But I suspect Google doesn't really want to remind you of what information each of its apps is accessing, or when.

    • I'm a little surprised Android hasn't copied iOS's behavior, where it asks the user whether or not to grant permissions to a specific thing (e.g Contacts or Location) at the time the app tries to do so.

      My old Nokia phone used to do that. It used to give me a modal security dialog warning to reject/accept/permanently accept the requests made by an application on my behalf (I do not remember if it had a 'permanently reject' option, may be it did?). In any case, this security behavior drove me absolutely nuts! I couldn't do a single thing without having my flow interrupted by another security dialog. Also since I was no longer in the context of the Ovi App Store when receiving the warning, I was also less li

      • ...or to interrupt the function of a caller id app right in the middle of a ringing phone call, just to ask for permission to my contacts.

        By the way, does iOS even do that? I suppose it would just be easier for Apple to not have any third party-made caller id applications, just like it doesn't have any of the awesome third party-made keyboard apps Android has.

  • Godwin. (Score:2, Funny)

    by tqk (413719)

    "Yeah, we know you didn't really vote this Hitler fellow to be your Fuhrer, but it's okay; the Kaiser gave it to him in an attempt to shut him up. Move along; nothing to see here."

  • Google is in on it (Score:3, Informative)

    by plastick (1607981) on Sunday April 14, 2013 @04:34PM (#43447307)
    Want proof that Google [cbsnews.com], Verizon [nbcnews.com], etc. are in on the privacy nightmares of Android [pcworld.com]?

    They keep releasing new versions that prevent people (who own their phones) from rooting them to

    1) block ads ( from their Google Play store) [zdnet.com]

    2) prevent you from using apps to control permissions (like LBE Privacy Guard that now reboots your phone in an endless loop [androidforums.com])

    With all the time and effort put into their OS, why have they not allowed users to control permissions on apps in any way, shape, or form? Why? Because they are marketing companies that also sell your data to other companies (including all the top mobile carriers). They make deals with these companies and propagate the problem - turning smart phones into a privacy nightmare. And it's not like the iPhone is any better.

    Until people take a stand (and stop being a bunch of apathetic consumers), it's not going to change. People allow themselves to be taken advantage of. It's sad. Most don't even care. They'll happily give Facebook and Google all their information because "they don't have anything to hide" - which we all know is the lamest excuse for apathy possible and is easily dismissed [donttrack.us] as moronic. And it just keeps getting worse - and now our governments collect this data too.

    And what is the effect? People are not getting jobs [sciencedaily.com] or losing their jobs [huffingtonpost.com] due to their Facebook posts. Insurance companies are increasing rates [wsj.com] on people who type certain terms into their search engines. And that's just barely getting started!

    Wake up, folks!
    • by alext (29323)

      I have LBE on Android 4.1.2 and it seems fine, if a bit hard to navigate. This is the more recent (modified Chinese) version though, not the Play Store one.

    • by wvmarle (1070040)

      If you can root your phone, it's a vulnerability that should be fixed, it's as simple as that. The OS is designed in a rather secure way, not being able to get root access is one of those design features. Vulnerabilities that you try to exploit to get root access can just as well be exploited by malware in apps, and then you never know what's happening.

      If you don't like that, by all means install an aftermarket ROM like Cyanogenmod. And even those should have no vulnerabilities, allowing apps root access wi

  • If you have root you can turn off those permissions. If the app doesn't run without snooping permissions (as Groupon and Google Offers do not), well, it's their choice not to get my business.
  • Keep in mind that you do not have to use Facebook's app; there are several third party Facebook apps for Android.

  • I installed the FB app when I first received my Galaxy Nexus, and the battery life dropped from 3 days to 1, so I axed it, and added a desktop shortcut to their mobile site, which seems to work well enough for me.
    • by int19 (778341)

      I installed the FB app when I first received my Galaxy Nexus, and the battery life dropped from 3 days to 1, so I axed it, and added a desktop shortcut to their mobile site, which seems to work well enough for me.

      ^ This

      I've been using the mobile website instead of the Android app for about a year. It's not quite as good as the app, but is more than adequate for my needs and has no battery impact. The only notifications I care about get emailed to me.

  • If you have a Facebook account you have already decided to publish every detail of your life anyway.

    • by wvmarle (1070040)

      I do have a facebook account. I do not post every detail of my life, on the contrary. I'm posting maybe one status update a year, if that many. They're going to have a hard time profiling me anyway, as I don't click "like" all the time either. I even still haven't bothered to add a profile picture, and my timeline is filled with photos other people posted. At least it was last time I visited that page, half year or longer ago.

  • Today there's an Apple fanboi sponsored article that screams that 99% of all malware is from Android. If you parse that you'll discover that most of it is PRECISELY this sort of thing which users will download and start hammering away like a crackpipe even when you tell them what it does to their personal info. Which btw iPhone apps do too. But we don't want to talk about that......

    People are stupid and we need to start beating them half to death with their phones.

  • Uninstalled.
  • I don't see how having access to your apps list matters much when the FB app already has access to:
    Your personal info (read and write contact data) Your location (fine)
    Network communication
    Your accounts
    Storage (modify/delete usb contents)
    Hardware controls
    Phone calls (state and identity)
    System tools
  • As the example I'm most familiar with, let me consider the Opera Mobile web browser. Since the browser supports GetUserMedia it has to say it accesses the camera, though in reality it will ask you if the website should be allowed to access your camera if the site asks to do so (if you visit some video chat site). Likewise since they support location-aware websites, the permissions say it uses both GPS and network location data - but again, if you visit a website that wants your location (so they can tell yo

  • Are there any open source facebook clients? Pidgin uses XMPP for facebook chat but it doesn't support "multi chat" and more importantly it does not let me read messages that I missed when I was offline.

  • by Mysticalfruit (533341) on Monday April 15, 2013 @06:58AM (#43450717) Journal
    I'm shocked a social networking company that makes its money by selling as much data as it can possibly mine out of its userbase has created an uber app that runs on your mobile device and gives them unfettered access to all your information.

    Really? People are shocked by this? I would have been much more shocked if a report came out showing how Facebook Home actually protected your privacy.

    Honestly I never had any interest in running this on any mobile device I own. Firstly I care about my privacy and secondly I could give two shits what the highest score my aunt has achieved in Candy Crush today. I always wondered what would happen if Farmville and Bejeweled had a baby... it's truly a Lovecraftian horror or tentacles, eyes and mouths..
  • I am not sure what all the Android crash report gathers, but the Facebook Android app is getting buggier and buggier with each release, with people screaming bloody murder in the reviews. It is possible that Facebook is gathering this data to see what might be causing people problems. Still, I don't like the idea of an app developer, even facebook, knowing what I am running. Not that I have anything to hide, but still....

  • In addition to the "Retrieve running apps" and "Reorder running apps" permissions, the new version of the facebook app also requests the "Draw over other apps" (aka the "popup" permission). I'm sticking with the old version, which is intrusive enough, thank you very much.

  • I declined the "upgrade" and will remove it from my phone when it ceases working. Facebook needs people more than people need Facebook.

Don't sweat it -- it's only ones and zeros. -- P. Skelly

Working...